Were NeanderThals More Spiritual Than Cannibalistic?

[PaleoPhil]

"you should always question the assumptions. You should always test."
"In modern times, charges of cannibalism are almost always slander. ('We would never do such a thing, but those savages in the next valley are cannibals!')"
  --Mary Doria Russell

------

The work of retired paleoanthropologist Mary Doria Russell provides an interesting counterpoint to that of the early paleoanthropologists who sought evidence to support their narrative of the progress of man, with modern man as a superior being over earlier man, other homonid species and all other primates. Part of that early narrative was that Neanderthals were savage brutes with no culture who practiced frequent cannibalism merely as a way of obtaining more food, with no more regard for fellow Neanderthals than for any prey animal. Russell provides a very different narrative. She hasn't settled the issue completely and the controversy rages on, but she has forced scientists and the wider public to re-examine their assumptions, which is generally a good thing.

From: The Novelist as God
Transcript of Radio Program
January 29, 2009
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2009/novelist-as-god/transcript.shtml

Ms. Tippett: And then some of your defining work was in this field of craniofacial biomechanics and cannibalism. So tell me if this is right. What you understood is a way to demonstrate that cut marks on bones were not evidence of cannibalism, which was an assumption people had made, but of a different kind of burial.

Ms. Russell: Yes. Yes.

Ms. Tippett: And what were the implications of that in terms of how we interpreted Neanderthal culture?

Ms. Russell: Oh, they are fascinating, really, because I began with the notion that first of all, you should always question the assumptions. You should always test.

Ms. Tippett: OK.

Ms. Russell: What was interesting to me is that cannibalism is very, very rare in the human species. Usually, it's something that people accuse other people of, you know, like 'We would never be cannibals, but those Neanderthals were.'

Ms. Tippett: As a way of kind of distinguishing what made us human, right?

Ms. Russell: Yes. Yes. Distinguishing and distancing and all the rest of it.

Ms. Tippett: Distancing. Mm-hmm.

Ms. Russell: Yeah. And on the other hand, secondary burial is extremely common across the human species, has great time depth.

Ms. Tippett: And what that means is that the bones were buried in one place for whatever reason, or stored, and then moved. Right?

Ms. Russell: Yes.

Ms. Tippett: And that's how these cut marks …

Ms. Russell: Do you remember when recently they thought they had found the bones of James, the brother of Jesus?

Ms. Tippett: Right. Mm-hmm.

Ms. Russell: Remember that? That's called an ossuary. It was a stone box.

Ms. Tippett: Right. Right.

Ms. Russell: And the bones were missing and it turned out to be a fraud. But in the Middle East and in Sicily and Madagascar and all these different places across the world, you bury the bones for maybe a year to three years and then they are exhumed. And any remaining soft tissue has to be cleaned off the bones very carefully, because in all of these cultures there is this notion of a three-part death. First you stop breathing, OK.

Ms. Tippett: Mm-hmm.

Ms. Russell: But while the soft tissue, while the meat is still on the bones, your soul wanders. And this is where you get a lot of ghost stories. When all of the soft tissue is carefully cleaned off the bones, then you are dead, dead, dead and your soul is at rest. OK. And then you are reburied. That's the second burial.

Ms. Tippett: I see.

Ms. Russell: So what I was able to do was to say, statistically there appears to be no doubt at all that in this cave this is secondary burial, which implies that they also had a three-part notion of death, and it implies a belief in the soul. And that implies a lot of interesting things about the way they saw the world.


From: God, Baseball, and Science: An Interview with Mary Doria Russell
By Mary Doria Russell, Jill Neimark
http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/68/id/8507/Default.aspx

Mary Doria Russell: "...the work I did on Croatian Neanderthals was my best.  For over 100 years, anthropologists assumed the cutmarks on the bones of the Krapina Neanderthals were evidence of cannibalism. That assumption was part of the rationale for cutting Neanderthals out of the human lineage.

In modern times, charges of cannibalism are almost always slander. ("We would never do such a thing, but those savages in the next valley are cannibals!")  We've documented starvation cannibalism (as with the Donner party) or symbolic cannibalism (a bit of heart ingested to gain a slain enemy's power).  We've even seen instances of "gourmet" cannibalism, but very rarely.  By contrast, secondary burial is a widespread mortuary practice-around the world, and in many prehistoric cultures--that also leaves cutmarks on human bones. The corpse is either buried or stored in a crypt until most flesh has rotted.  Then the bones are carefully cleaned (which leaves small marks on the bones), bundled, and reburied.

(The ossuary purported to be that of Jesus' brother James is an example of secondary burial. That's what the cave crypts referred to in the New Testament were-temporary resting places for decomposing bodies that were later bundled and placed in stone boxes.  For rationalists, this can make stories of dead people rising from crypts comprehensible in a non-miraculous way.)

Anyway, I developed a protocol for distinguishing the cutmarks made during butchery from those made for secondary burial, using anatomical and statistical methods that are still considered the benchmark for establishing cannibalism in prehistoric sites.  It was a lovely bit of science, if I say so myself, and I was even more pleased that the Krapina Neanderthal cutmarks fell dead in the middle of the Secondary Burial statistics, which were 2 standard deviations off the Butchery mean."

[TylerDurden]

The trouble with this notion is that evidence of cannibalism is also endemic in the neolithic era as well(and even more difficult to disprove). And she's going to have a hard time explaining away such cannibals as those societies in pre-Contact south america etc. I agree that the notion that cannibalism was an extra source of food during famine is a bit weak, but there is a multitude of evidence in favour of cannibalism being used for religious rites. For example, a remnant of previous human sacrifice is still present, albeit only symbolically, in the "eating the flesh and blood of christ" at communion.

[William]

The trouble with this notion is that evidence of cannibalism is also endemic in the neolithic era as well(and even more difficult to disprove). And she's going to have a hard time explaining away such cannibals as those societies in pre-Contact south america etc. I agree that the notion that cannibalism was an extra source of food during famine is a bit weak, but there is a multitude of evidence in favour of cannibalism being used for religious rites. For example, a remnant of previous human sacrifice is still present, albeit only symbolically, in the "eating the flesh and blood of christ" at communion.

She wrote as a paleoanthropologist, while you write about neolithic degenerates, who were starving for meat. Europeans introduced pork into America, which solved the problem.

[TylerDurden]

She wrote as a paleoanthropologist, while you write about neolithic degenerates, who were starving for meat. Europeans introduced pork into America, which solved the problem.

What a load of bollocks! As if introduction of 1 type of meat could solve cannibalism! What a laugh!!!

[cherimoya_kid]

To William--

The Maori had the best teeth and bone structure of pretty much all the groups Dr. Price studied.  He found literally no cavities or crooked teeth in their entire population.  They were also tremendous cannibals.  They ate quite a few  of Captain Cook's crew.  I seriously doubt that they were doing so because they were starving for meat. LOL

That's not to say that the cannibalism in the New Guinean highlands might not be partially a result of their lack of sufficient meat/protein.  However, the Maori were simply brutal cannibals, and that...is...that, William.

[PaleoPhil]

The trouble with this notion is that evidence of cannibalism is also endemic in the neolithic era as well(and even more difficult to disprove). And she's going to have a hard time explaining away such cannibals as those societies in pre-Contact south america etc.

She would indeed have a hard time trying to explain away Neolothic cannibalism but that isn't her point. She believes, as do some other respected scientists, that cannibalism increased with the Neolothic, so that would only serve to support her hypothesis.

I agree that the notion that cannibalism was an extra source of food during famine is a bit weak, but there is a multitude of evidence in favour of cannibalism being used for religious rites. For example, a remnant of previous human sacrifice is still present, albeit only symbolically, in the "eating the flesh and blood of christ" at communion.

Yes, I agree that cannibalism has been used for multiple purposes. I also happen to agree with Russell that the tendency even now is for scientists to ascribe cannibalism to "the other" in knee-jerk fashion, instead of questioning their assumptions and more carefully examining the evidence. She hasn't refuted all the evidence for Stone Age cannibalism, and I doubt that she would even want to. Her view seems to be that most--not all--of it was misinterpreted and she produced a scientific method for assessing the evidence that is increasingly becoming the standard. Still, the debate rages on and I'm sure that the other camp will come up with some counterpoints of their own.

...The Maori had the best teeth and bone structure of pretty much all the groups Dr. Price studied.  He found literally no cavities or crooked teeth in their entire population.  They were also tremendous cannibals. ....

Heh, heh. I find the Maori fascinating. They are one of the few people amongst whom some openly and unashamedly talk about past cannibalism. The honesty and directness is refreshing. They are also, AFAIK, the only near-hunter-gatherer-culture that has regained dominance in any nation in the world (sadly, most of them adopted the modern diet, but some are returning to a more traditional diet and many Maori are once again practicing the old-time customs, traditions, ceremonies, values, religion, etc.). Their fierceness may be part of the reason. The comparatively peaceful Bushmen sadly seem to be getting walked all over these days. Some day I must visit New Zealand. I wish it were OK to stick your tongue out at people here like it is there. So much more fun than just a simple handshake.

[William]

To William--

The Maori had the best teeth and bone structure of pretty much all the groups Dr. Price studied.  He found literally no cavities or crooked teeth in their entire population.  They were also tremendous cannibals.  They ate quite a few  of Captain Cook's crew.  I seriously doubt that they were doing so because they were starving for meat. LOL

That's not to say that the cannibalism in the New Guinean highlands might not be partially a result of their lack of sufficient meat/protein.  However, the Maori were simply brutal cannibals, and that...is...that, William.

Neither paleolithic nor American. Just more degenerate neolithics, and with bad taste. Their polynesian neigbours preferred black men to white.

[PaleoPhil]

the Maori were simply brutal cannibals, and that...is...that

This is a good example, whether intentional or not, of the demeaning of "the other," based mainly on assumptions, to make ourselves superior in comparison, that Dr. Russell was talking about. Once one studies the Maori or the Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, etc., one learns that they were more than just brutal and that civilization is less than perfect. Our ancestors were not perfect, and neither are we.

There is a saying among the Ashanti people that you should not point at your father's house with your left hand (a sign of disrespect). When we demonize our ancestors and their ways, and other species, we demean ourselves, because we are the product of our ancestors and the environment and we are part of the overall web of species, of life--not separate from it and above it. Yes, our ancestors made some big mistakes, probably mostly unintentionally. We have been compounding the errors, so we are not guiltless. The time for finger pointing is long past. Now is the time to start working to make things right again.

[TylerDurden]

She would indeed have a hard time trying to explain away Neolothic cannibalism but that isn't her point. She believes, as do some other respected scientists, that cannibalism increased with the Neolothic, so that would only serve to support her hypothesis.
Yes, I agree that cannibalism has been used for multiple purposes. I also happen to agree with Russell that the tendency even now is for scientists to ascribe cannibalism to "the other" in knee-jerk fashion, instead of questioning their assumptions and more carefully examining the evidence. She hasn't refuted all the evidence for Stone Age cannibalism, and I doubt that she would even want to. Her view seems to be that most--not all--of it was misinterpreted and she produced a scientific method for assessing the evidence that is increasingly becoming the standard. Still, the debate rages on and I'm sure that the other camp will come up with some counterpoints of their own.

The demonisation of the other might apply to previous expanding empires and colonies, but hardly applies now. I think most scientists(and people) now accept that the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnons had a rich cultural life, based on the evidence re graves/rites etc. But the evidence of cannibalism is endemic throughout all the hominid species right up to homo erectus:-

http://krishspeak.blogspot.com/2009/08/did-our-ancestors-practice-cannibalism.html

[PaleoPhil]

The demonisation of the other might apply to previous expanding empires and colonies, but hardly applies now. I think most scientists(and people) now accept that the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnons had a rich cultural life, based on the evidence re graves/rites etc. But the evidence of cannibalism is endemic throughout all the hominid species right up to homo erectus:-

http://krishspeak.blogspot.com/2009/08/did-our-ancestors-practice-cannibalism.html

But, as what I posted above indicates, Russell is not convinced that most of that evidence is accurately interpreted. The small amount of evidence that she examined was hugely misinterpreted, according to her, and she believes that application of her method will find that more of the evidence you've pointed to was misinterpreted as well. So it's not accepted by all respected scientists that NeanderThals and Cro-Magnons engaged in the level of cannibalism which your sources interpreted (and again, for clarity, she's not saying that there was NO cannibalism in the Stone Age, just likely much less than what has been interpreted). It used to be that the interpretation you've proposed was widely accepted, but recently, prominent scientists like Russell have produced counter evidence, so it is now an area of controversy. I don't know who's more correct, and I'm keeping an open mind on the subject. I've also skimmed a recently published book that coincides well with Russell's work and claims that the interpretations in the 70's - 90's that portrayed hunter-gatherer, small-band Stone Agers as more violent and warring, as well as more cannibalistic, than moderners were generally misguided.

[TylerDurden]

The problem seems to be that her notion of secondary burial requires some sort of religious belief. That would certainly apply to the Neanderthals given clear burial rites etc., but it is extremely questionable that homo erectus and earlier hominids had any religious belief whatsoever, given smaller brain-size etc.

Another point is that there is a dominant theory of "Man as Scavenger". Don't scavenging animals often eat their own kind when they drop off dead?

[PaleoPhil]

The problem seems to be that her notion of secondary burial requires some sort of religious belief. That would certainly apply to the Neanderthals given clear burial rites etc., but it is extremely questionable that homo erectus and earlier hominids had any religious belief whatsoever, given smaller brain-size etc.

If you read Russell's stuff or listen to her interviews, you'll find that she argues almost exactly that--that Neanderthals had spiritual/supernatural beliefs and practices (religious is a more loaded term with modern associations that may not apply, depending on one's interpretation), including a concept of a 3-part death and burial rites. Her interpretations are shocking to the majority of people today and to many scientists, which lends credence to her contention that much subconscious underestimation and demeaning of the "other" still exists in the scientific and broader community. Indeed, some scientists have posited that such attitudes toward those who are different than us are natural human tendencies that evolved because of the survival advantage they provided (quick recognition of an outsider with different features and traits as a potential enemy, unification and rapid mobilization of the group against outsiders, etc.) and may even predate humanity.

Another point is that there is a dominant theory of "Man as Scavenger". Don't scavenging animals often eat their own kind when they drop off dead?

Russell also looked for signs of scavenging and found that observation and computer analysis indicate that the cut marks she points to in support of her hypothesis were from neither scavenging nor cannibalism. She claims they most closely resemble the cut marks left from processing for reburial.

Man the Scavenger was never quite a dominant theory and it's brief heyday has already being eclipsed by more recent evidence indicating that, if anything, scientists have long UNDERestimated the capacity of early hominids and other primates to hunt, butcher and even exterminate prey species. The "Man the Hunted" hypothesis for example, was obsolete before the book with that title was even published. Here is how the progression of evidence and interpretations has gone:

Man the Savage Brute and Cannibalistic Hunter => Man the Politically Correct Near-Vegetarian Scavenger-Gatherer and Feminist => Man the Cunning, Cultured, Opportunistically Carnivorous Super-Hunter and Exterminator of Megafauna (and Nonhuman Primate the Hunter and most recently Woman the Hunter)

The latest paradigm has not achieved overwhelming dominance, so the current environment seems to be contentious and includes all these views and likely more to varying degrees, with none holding a monopoly.

By opportunistically carnivorous, I mean that plant foods were still eaten, but they became secondary and meats became the preferred staple food and increasingly came to dominate the diet. By super-hunter, I mean that hominids became so devastating at hunting that they wiped out some megafauna species. As far as I know, hominids are the only predator species that has exterminated numerous of its prey as well as competitor predators. In other words, they became super-predators to a degree that imbalanced nature. More study is required, but this seems to have been the norm from around 1.5 million years ago to 30,000 years ago, with the peak of hunting-based opportunistic carnivory appearing to range from around 500,000 years ago to 30,000 years ago.

I had already read much of the evidence on related subjects before the arguments were made in this forum for "man the scavenger/hunted" and I updated my reading on those subjects when SuperInfinity raised them to see whether the weight of the evidence had changed since my last readings. In doing that I also came upon additional research re: cannibalism (as well as war and violence in general) in the same sources (some of which I had also previously perused). I found that the evidence for SuperInfinity's claims was weak and out-of-date, countered in recent years by more convincing evidence and interpretations of the opposite: that humans are more naturally opportunistically carnivorous super predators who did more hunting than scavenging going back at least a half million years and likely more than a million years and that it looks like cannibalism and full scale war were more prevalent and larger-scale during the Neolithic than the Paleolithic (especially in the early and middle Paleolithic when band societies were prevalent vs. later tribal HG societies).

I've provided lots of evidence in this forum from my findings. I was planning on adding more in the future, it there's any interest. I happened to be listening to NPR when Russell was being interviewed, and her findings fit right in with what I've been finding, so I posted excerpts. I doubt that she's 100% correct, just as I doubt any scientist is, but I think she's onto something. The process she invented and the evidence it produced looks worthy of consideration and her interpretations seem at least as plausible as the old cannibalistic ones.

It looks like science is in the midst of a turbulent revolution. With many assumptions being overturned and dominant theories undermined (with the animal-fats-as-bad hypothesis of Ancel Keys and the Food Pyramid being just a couple)--and as a result many tempers will likely be tweaked.

[TylerDurden]

Actually, the scavenger hypothesis is extremely strong re worldviews. This is partly because of the expensive tissue hypothesis which states that humans would scavenge the raw brains and raw marrow from corpses already largely stripped of meat by predators, and that, thereby, with all those extra long-chain fats they managed to get the resources to grow larger brains.

Also, the hunting theories hold water mainly in the last stages of the Palaeolithic era, not so much before. For example, things like nets, traps and bows and arrows weren't invented until c.60,000 years BC, and those items would have helped encourage a switch to hunting.

*I woukld caution re stating that we were opportunistic carnivores. Given that more and more studies in the past decade have shown that (some) humans ate plenty of plant-material during the Palaeolithic(I've already referred to a few in previous posts), the old meat-dominated theory is becoming more difficult to support.

[PaleoPhil]

Actually, the scavenger hypothesis is extremely strong re worldviews. This is partly because of the expensive tissue hypothesis which states that humans would scavenge the raw brains and raw marrow from corpses already largely stripped of meat by predators, and that, thereby, with all those extra long-chain fats they managed to get the resources to grow larger brains.

And they couldn't do that by eating the rest of the animal along with the brains and marrow? There is evidence for the hunting, killing and butchering of huge megafauna by H. erectus and later homonids going back at least 1.5 million years. Both aggressive scavenging (stealing) and hunting would have enabled teams of homonids to eat as much of a carcass as they desired. Scavenging alone would not account for the highly carnivorous nature of the diet of the hominids in the golden age of the megafauna that the teeth and bone evidence, prey remains, etc., suggests.

Also, the hunting theories hold water mainly in the last stages of the Palaeolithic era, not so much before.

Actually, there is evidence going back at least 1.5 million years and the evidence becomes very compelling ca 500,000 years ago. There is even some evidence that austrolopithecus hunted as well as scavenged. Not surprising, given that austrolopithecus appears to have been a more intelligent animal than the chimps who are able to hunt today.

"I woukld caution re stating that we were opportunistic carnivores. Given that more and more studies in the past decade have shown that (some) humans ate plenty of plant-material during the Palaeolithic

Some ate plenty of plants, sure, especially towards the end of the Paleolithic, but the accumulating evidence has been forcing me to accept the likelihood that hominids became increasingly carnivorous from 2.5 million to 30,000 years ago, then around that time things reversed and they started eating more plants and smaller animals (and their brain size started to decrease), as much of the megafauna had been eaten to extinction. I hope I'm wrong and future evidence swings things more over to plants again, but that's where it stands now in my view.

(I've already referred to a few in previous posts), the old meat-dominated theory is becoming more difficult to support.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one too. I believe the scavenger hypothesis is starting to fade and was never very credible. How can it be that chimpanzees can hunt with their bare hands and small sticks and in coordinated teams, despite lacking humanity's facility with complex vocal language, yet somehow early humans were too stupid to make their own sticks and group-hunt with a modicum of success? It stretches the imagination beyond credulity.

[TylerDurden]

By evidence of large-scale hunting I was referring to the mass-graves of wild horses etc found near the end of the Palaeolithic era(c.30,000 to 20,000 years ago). I have never heard of equivalent sites from much earlier periods.

As regards the studies focusing on plant-consumption in the Palaeolithic, they actually go much further back than just 30,000 years.Plant-consumption in the Middle Palaeolithic, for example, is a proven fact:-

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u386383180288602/

[carnivore]

By evidence of large-scale hunting I was referring to the mass-graves of wild horses etc found near the end of the Palaeolithic era(c.30,000 to 20,000 years ago). I have never heard of equivalent sites from much earlier periods.

As regards the studies focusing on plant-consumption in the Palaeolithic, they actually go much further back than just 30,000 years.Plant-consumption in the Middle Palaeolithic, for example, is a proven fact:-

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u386383180288602/

So plant food was eaten during the middle and upper paleolithic to lower the nitrogen load of lean meat ?
Why not if fat was not available.

This confirms that plant food was only a substitude food, and not a staple, as "The notion of the Paleolithic meat-eater has
been broadly corroborated by isotopic studies".

[William]

By evidence of large-scale hunting I was referring to the mass-graves of wild horses etc found near the end of the Palaeolithic era(c.30,000 to 20,000 years ago). I have never heard of equivalent sites from much earlier periods.

As regards the studies focusing on plant-consumption in the Palaeolithic, they actually go much further back than just 30,000 years.Plant-consumption in the Middle Palaeolithic, for example, is a proven fact:-

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u386383180288602/

More junk science. They studied lean-meat eaters, probably believing that Cordain was right..
There weren't any lean meat eaters, except possibly in times of desperate starvation.

[TylerDurden]

More junk science. They studied lean-meat eaters, probably believing that Cordain was right..
There weren't any lean meat eaters, except possibly in times of desperate starvation.

trouble is that fatty-meat-eaters were somewhat scarce as these were grassfed animals not grainfed.

[PaleoPhil]

By evidence of large-scale hunting I was referring to the mass-graves of wild horses etc found near the end of the Palaeolithic era(c.30,000 to 20,000 years ago). I have never heard of equivalent sites from much earlier periods.

Actually, I have Clive Gamble's book, The Paleolithic Societies of Europe, which describes in detail the mountain of evidence of fauna consumption by Eurasian Stone Agers going back 1/2 a million years. So enormous was the carnage of woolly mammoth, woolly rhino, aurochs, bison, elk, horse, steppe ass, musk ox, megaceros (giant deer), red deer, reindeer, wild pig, capra (mountain goats), rupicapra bovids, dama (fallow deer), saiga (antelope), capreolus (roe deer), ovis (sheep), ibex and bear, that Gamble terms the Middle Paleolithic the period of the "carnivore guild."

The carnivore guild flourished during the golden age of megafauna that became enormously abundant with the disappearance of the giant cats and giant hyenas, accompanied by a beneficial climate and lush grasslands. The campsites of the carnivore guild are littered with animal bones. The Stone Age Eurasian megafauna hunters built homes out of the massive bones of their larger kills. During this era hominids moved "to specialized, prime-aged hunting" (pp. 233). Gamble says, "the evolution of the hominid niche within the guild of large Pleistocene carnivores was as an interceptor hunter of prime-aged prey. Only lion among the other large carnivores takes prime condition animals. Hyena and wolf kill mostly the young and the old." (p. 236) The numbers and sizes of the mounds of bones that humans left behind dwarf the kills of any other predator, including the lion. Thus, hominids became super-predators. So massive was the impact of these super-predators, that whole species of megafauna were wiped out. Something I don't believe any non-hominid predators managed to perpetrate.

Bear Stanley and Voegtlin exaggerate this period by seeming to claim that most or all hominids NEVER ate plants during it. I would not go that far. I believe the carnivore guild was composed of flexible carnivores who occasionally ate plants when they had to or as a semi-sweet treat (such as with wild berries). So evidence of plant consumption does go back farther than 30,000 years, but it was the exception rather than the rule. I only claimed that the evidence suggests plant consumption may have begun increasing around that time, and that human brain size reportedly began to shrink around that time.

I suspect that part of the reason there is so much resistance among nonscientists to acknowledging the carnivore guild, and why some people instead invent bogus stories about vegetarian or near-vegetarian ancestors (I'm not claiming that anyone here does, now that SuperInfinity is gone), is that it is too unpleasant to accept that our ancestors might have been responsible for a multi-species holocaust. Not just eating animals, but exterminating them--both prey and competing predators--with wasteful hunting (at times cutting out the tongues, brains, backfat and marrow and maybe an organ or two and discarding the rest), overhunting and second order predation (killing off competitor predators), and overmanaging the environment (such as burning forests to produce more prey-friendly grasslands).

Instead of the Lakota habit of using every bit of the animal being an ancient tradition that extends all the way back to the earliest homo sapiens and beyond, I suspect it was a more recent habit developed as a necessary adaptation after much of the largest megafauna was wiped out. I need to do more research in this area, though. Anything that people can provide on this subject would be helpful.

Some accounts indicate that not even all American Indians practiced wise management of prey species:

Sometimes the Indians selected only the fatty parts of the animal, throwing the rest away. "On the twenty-second of July," writes Samuel Hearne, "we met several strangers, whom we joined in pursuit of the caribou, which were at this time so plentiful that we got everyday a sufficient number for our support, and indeed too frequently killed several merely for the tongues, marrow and fat." [Guts and Grease: The Diet of Native Americans, By Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD, http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/native_americans.html

I hope I am wrong about all of this. But the accumulating evidence is increasingly forcing me to accept the likelihood.

[William]

I suspect that part of the reason there is so much resistance among nonscientists to acknowledging the carnivore guild, and why some people instead invent bogus stories about vegetarian or near-vegetarian ancestors (I'm not claiming that anyone here does, now that SuperInfinity is gone), is that it is too unpleasant to accept that our ancestors might have been responsible for a multi-species holocaust.

Another reason is that there is resistance among stick-in-the-mud "scientists" to the discoveries of I. Velikovsky "Earth in Upheaval" "Worlds in Collision", J. McCanney and others who quote evidence that the history of the earth is cataclysmic - one piece of evidence is the millions of frozen wooly mammoths in Siberia and Alaska.
Another cataclysm finished the dinosaurs, and others could have killed other species.

Personally, I find it difficult to accept the idea that our big-brained ancestors stupidly killed all the food, then invented farming. I think that evidence indicates that we, not they, are the self-destructive degenerates.

[TylerDurden]

Judging from the evidence, while it might be safe to state that plant-foods were only 0 to 10% of the hominid diet in Arctic areas during the Palaeolithic era, it is extremely unlikely that plant-foods were hardly ever eaten further south. For one thing, there were also warm interglacial periods, all over the Palaeolithic era, encouraging further plant-food-consumption. At any rate, I do agree that c.35% of the diet(the most commonly accepted Palaeolithic model) was the usual maximum upper limit of plants in the diet, given the lack of agriculture.

[PaleoPhil]

Judging from the evidence, while it might be safe to state that plant-foods were only 0 to 10% of the hominid diet in Arctic areas during the Palaeolithic era, it is extremely unlikely that plant-foods were hardly ever eaten further south. ....

Actually, in The Paleolithic Societies of Europe, Gamble mostly ignored the Arctic and includes such bone excavation sites as Bilzingsleben, Grobern, Lehringen, and Taubach in Germany and Biache-Saint-Vaast, Grotte Lazaret, Le Flageolet, and Mauran in France, the Asprochaliko cave at Preveza, Greece, the Guattari cave at the tip of the boot's heel in Italy, and Zafarraya, near the southern coast of Spain.

Incidentally, Guattari cave is another site where early interpretations of cannibalism by Neanderthals were later overturned, according to Bruce Bower of Science News ("Cave evidence chews up cannibalism claims - new study casts doubt on assumption that Neandertals practiced cannibalism in Italy's Guattari Cave," Science News, June 1, 1991, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n22_v139/ai_10874573/). Instead of an overwhelming consensus in favor of widespread Neanderthal and hunter-gatherer homo sapien cannibalism, Bower states that "scientific opinion remains split on whether cannibalism was practiced routinely and systematically ... or occurred only in rare cases of imminent starvation."

One of the more interesting of the bone sites that Gamble reviews is the cliffs of the granite headland at the island of La Cotte de St Brelade, Jersey, dated to ca 238,000 years BP. At that time sea levels were slightly below those at present and Jersey was was a peninsula jutting out from what is now Normandy, France. Gamble writes that "It is possible that megafauna were stampeded over these cliffs and then subsequently dismembered and dragged into the cave," (p. 248) in the same way that Native Americans used cliffs on the Great Plains to kill buffalo hundreds over two hundred thousand years later (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_jump). The Blackfeet descriptively called these megafauna kill sites, "pishkun"--loosely translated as "deep blood kettle."

One thing to keep in mind here is that the European members of "the Carnivore Guild," and their counterparts to the east, on the plains of Asia, were the ancestors of probably the majority of us here.